Subject: naming debates

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:11:07 -0800 (PST)

dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list. there is a
sandbox created just for naming debates, see [email-masked]

those interested in continuing these discussions should pick them up some
place else.

thanks,

-rick

---

From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 22:19:59 +0100 (CET)

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, at 13:11 [=GMT-0800], Rick Wesson wrote:

> dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list.

Not even the technical scalabilty of the root-zone?

> there is a

Does that still exist?

-- 
[03] I thank you for your time and interest.
http://logoff.org/

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:15:56 -0800

But [email-masked] carries zero weight in ICANN discussions, so taking this discussion there is a total waste of time.

If ICANN and IETF want the discussion to go elsewhere, then it will go where it wishes to go and not cave in to ICANN control (i.e., bottling up) of the discussion.

Or, if you do not want to see other opinions or ideas, just put your spam filters to work, or subscribe to the CENSORED version of the IETF list.

We like the way ostriches deal with things they do not wish to see ;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:26:17 -0800

> Not even the technical scalabilty of the root-zone?

No.  See the DNSOP working group.

>> sandbox created just for naming debates, see [email-masked]

Yes.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:09:47 -0800

> We like the way ostriches deal with things they do not wish to see ;-)...

listen to this very carefully:

	GET YOUR ENDLESS DNS RANTS OFF OF THE IETF DISCUSSION LIST

this has been going on for over a decade and reasonable people have grown tired
of it. 

there is absolutely nothing of technical interest in any of this discussion.
it's just a DDOS against thousands of mailboxes.

	TAKE IT ELSEWHERE

if you don't like the list that rick suggested, that's fine. use another,
non-technical list.

may i humbly ask harold to start dropping folks from ietf-general who
continue to post on this topic?

we've already had a couple of warning shots on this, so i think it's
perfectly reasonable to view persistent offenders as having fallen into the
"fleming" category. let's nuke'em for a year and move on.

kind regards,

/mtr

---

From: "Mark Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:27:10 -0500

>this has been going on for over a decade and reasonable people have grown

Being relatively new to IETF discussions...

I have a few questions concerning your comment:

When over a dozen people make comments of interest, regarding a topic on the
list, would it not seem that some people are not tired of it?

What is the process, within the IETF, if a group sees interest in pursuing a
topic, while not burdening others, like yourself?

>"fleming" category. let's nuke'em for a year and move on.

Doesn't this sound a little extreme?  Or is this the straw that broke the
camels back for you?

>/mtr

Regards,
Mark

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:34:54 -0500

On Wednesday, Dec 4, 2002, at 12:09 America/Montreal, Marshall Rose 
> continue to post on this topic?

Concur.  This is just a DDOS attack on the list and its well nigh
time to to act to clean up the list and improve the SNR.

Ran

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:53:19 -0800

Mark> What is the process, within the IETF, if a group sees interest in pursuing a
Mark> topic, while not burdening others, like yourself?

See:  <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>

>>continue to post on this topic?

Amen.

This topic has become a denial of service attack on the ietf list.

d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:01:11 -0500 (EST)

> topic, while not burdening others, like yourself?

What were dealing with here Mark is a political issue. Known
ietf/icann/doc insiders have a pressing need to limit debate on the
issues.

Indeed dns, naming and root service is very much an ietf topic of
interest.  Thats why the drum banging is so loud.  It serves the special
interest on this list that such debate be limited or altogether
eliminated.

cheers
joe baptista

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:57:28 -0600

Thus spake "Mark Harris" <[email-masked]>
> topic, while not burdening others, like yourself?

The IETF is organized into WGs that deal with individual issues; by your
argument, all of the WGs should conduct their business on the main IETF
list.  Clearly this doesn't scale.

There are lots of DNS lists out there, and this argument certainly isn't
new.  I apologize for wasting everyone's bandwidth/time this round and won't
continue to do so; I hope others follow suit.

S

---

From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:04:50 +0100 (CET)

> This topic has become a denial of service attack on the ietf list.

Coming from someone who deliberately disrupted the ncdnhc list for
years, this sound very sour. I guess this is US democracy, right?